Personally I don't think that the idea of topping a previously immodest strapless dress with a cardigan, shrug or jacket is anything new. This is what women who have wanted modesty have been doing for years. In fact I seem to remember wearing a lace "jacket" over my Gunnesax by Jessica McClintock Prom dress. But back to the point: it's not a new concept. Unless it IS a new style and I was just way to trendy for my time. I'm sure that framing it as "new" will help make it all the more "hip" to today's high-fashion followers. If the author had called it "old" or "stale" who would want to wear it?
The author also quotes Stephanie Meyerson from Stylesight, a company that "forecasts" fashion as saying:
Covered up can mean put-together (think "Gossip Girl") or disheveled (a bit of Mary-Kate-and-Ashley grunge meets Amy Winehouse). And even that look can have sexual connotations.
"It's the one-night-stand look," Meyerson said. As in the disheveled morning after, clothes with a slept-in feel."
I have to completely disagree that our teenagers, in their modest fashion choices will look either put-together or disheveled ala Mary Kate Olsen. The 'One-night-stand look'? Seriously? 'Sexual connotations'? Uhn-uh! Why is it that even modest fashions MUST have a sexual connotation to some people? Why can't modesty just simply be modest? That, I believe is in the eye and the mind of the beholder.
Besides the fact that if you are "shocked" by your daughters modest choice of clothing then I'm sorry but you have not been guiding her towards modesty. Not if her modesty "shocks" you. If you guide your daughter's (and son's) choices towards modesty from early on, you will not be shocked when they actually do choose modesty.
Yippee for all of us camisole, capsleeve-wearing high fashion women...we are finally right up there on the fashion scale with the Olsen Twins! Makes you just want to don your hole-y tights, big bug-eyed sunglasses and ratty scarf doesn't it?